Islams Image Problem: 12 Caricatures Depicting the Prophet Muhammad
From Cox and Forkum:
A long-running controversy over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by a Danish newspaper boiled over in the past few days as a boycott brought sales of some Danish products to a halt in Arab countries across the Middle East, while Danish interests came under attack. A diverse group of Muslim activists has stirred a consumer uproar in one of Denmark's fastest-growing packaged-foods markets in a case pitting freedom of the press against religious sensitivity, and which is playing out in the arenas of diplomacy and global trade. ... The controversy has been simmering since September, when the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad, including one that shows him wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb with a lit fuse. Islam strictly forbids depictions of the prophet. Flemming Rose, the newspaper's culture editor, said the works were not intended to offend and were in keeping with a tradition of satirical cartoons. "These were not directed against Muslims, but against people in cultural life in Europe who are submitting themselves to self-censorship when dealing with Islam," he said by telephone Monday. Muslim groups in Denmark, and then across the Middle East, demanded apologies from the newspaper and the Danish government. Late Monday, the newspaper issued an apology. "The drawings are not against the Danish law but have indisputably insulted many Muslims, for which we shall apologize," the newspaper's statement said, according to Reuters. The Danish authorities have expressed regret but have refused to take action. "We have freedom of the press, and the government can't get involved in these kinds of matters," said Bay, the Danish consul. [Emphasis added]Even Bill Clinton weighed in, calling the cartoons "appalling" and comparing them to anti-Semitism. Zombie has posted a Mohammed Image Archive. For a detailed account of the controversy, see Robert Spencer's Thou Shalt Not Draw from December. As for the Piglet reference: Perils Before Swine. (Some links found via Little Green Footballs.) Michelle Malkin has an excellent, up-to-date overview of the Mohammed cartoon issue: Fight the bullies of Islam.
Something very important is happening in Denmark -- a showdown over freedom, tolerance, and their wolfish menaces in religious clothing. So, please, turn off "American Idol," put down the Game Boy for a moment, and pay attention. This does affect you.She highlights a "Buy Danish" campaign designed to counter the effect of the Muslim boycott. See her full post for many more related links: FIRST, THEY CAME FOR THE CARTOONISTS. Also see:
-- Face of Muhammed has the original newspaper article (via Thomas Glahn)
-- The Belmont Club: I Am Spartacus
-- More European newspapers are printing the controversial cartoons in a show of solidarity with Denmark, including publications in France, Germany, Spain and Italy (via LGF)
-- And Robert Spencer suggests that if you value your freedom, politely write your local paper and ask them to reprint the cartoons.
-- Silent Running says the boycott may be the least successful in history, if the popularity of their "Buy Danish" t-shirts is any measure. The AP has an overview of the European papers: Papers Republish Controversial Cartoons.
French and German newspapers republished caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad on Wednesday in what they called a defense of freedom of expression, sparking fresh anger from Muslims. The drawings have divided opinion within Europe and the Middle East since a Danish newspaper first printed them in September. Islamic tradition bars any depiction of the prophet to prevent idolatry. ... France Soir, which is owned by an Egyptian magnate and has struggled to attract readers, justified its decision. "The appearance of the 12 drawings in the Danish press provoked emotions in the Muslim world because the representation of Allah and his prophet is forbidden. But because no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society, France Soir is publishing the incriminating caricatures," the paper said.Charles Johnson notes that the above link about Spanish and Italian newspapers also mentions that the French editor was fired for publishing the cartoons.
But late on Wednesday its owner, Raymond Lakah, said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual". Mr Lakah said: "We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication." The president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, had described France Soir's publication as an act of "real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France". Other papers stood by their publication. In Berlin, Die Welt argued there was a right to blaspheme in the West, and asked whether Islam was capable of coping with satire. "The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical," it wrote in an editorial.Piglet strikes again. Lots of new information from Michelle Malkin who notes that The New York Sun printed some of the cartoons, as well as a paper in Jordan. Will any other US papers? And Robert Spencer has more coverage at FrontPageMag.com: Cartoon Rage vs. Freedom of Speech (via TIA Daily)
The cartoons are not a manifestation of anti-Islamic prejudice: criticism of Muhammad or even of Islam is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Islam is not a race; the problems with it are not the product of fear mongering and fiction, but of ideology and facts -- facts that have been stressed repeatedly by Muslims around the world, when they commit violence in the name of Islam and justify that violence by its teachings.
Google to Censor Itself in China
From Cox and Forkum: 
Internet search engine Google has rolled out a China-based version of its popular Web site -- one that bows to Beijing's censorship laws and will edit the content of its results. Google.cn -- the Chinese language version of the search portal -- debuted Wednesday with the company acknowledging the balancing act it was attempting to perform. "In order to operate from China, we have removed some content from the search results available on Google.cn, in response to local law, regulation or policy," a Google statement said. "While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission." Google said it intends to report to users when information is removed from search results. The company says it does the same thing in response to local laws in Germany, France and the United States. Prior to Wednesday's debut in China, Google operated the Chinese-language version of the search engine through a link on its U.S. Web site, Google.com. Previously, the Beijing government blocked the results of search requests that violated its regulations. The new Google site will self-censor based on Chinese law.Little Green Footballs recently posted an example of the results of this self-censorship:
Standard Google Image Search for "tiananmen"Pajamas Media has extensive coverage of the topic: China Syndrome
China Google Image Search for "tiananmen"
John Fund’s Report on Canadian Elections
In the January 24th WSJ Political Diary, as part of his reporting on the Canadian election results, John Fund stated:That said, Canada's election is a watershed. The Liberals have so dominated the country's politics that they were in office longer during the 20th Century than even the Communists in the Soviet Union. The country was in danger of becoming a permanent one-and-a-half party state. Having been chastened by the voters for their rampant corruption and insider dealing, the Liberals will now have a chance to clean up their act. For his part, Mr. Harper will end the gratuitous America-bashing of recent years and at least make a stab at more sensible economic policies. Grading on a Canadian curve, yesterday's result amounts to a welcome political revolution.John's commentary is probably intended to be light-hearted, and some of his observations have merit, but overall that paragraph reveals some serious problems with his thinking. First, to compare a voluntarily-elected government with the brutal, totalitarian regime in communist Russia erases all the vital distinctions, i.e. that the government in Canada is limited, that its electorate could have voted it out every four years, that the government didn't use force to maintain its position, etc. -- to instead focus on an essentially perceptual level observation, i.e. how long the government was in power. Or to look at it another way: if we ever manage to elect a great government, should we vote it out after a few years, simply in the name of not having them in office for too long?
Also, there is no a priori reason to dismiss a one party state, much less a "one-and-a-half party state" (whatever that means), if that party respects rights and governs properly. Should we indict George Washington's government simply because it was a "one party" government, or should we look at how the country was governed during his tenure and evaluate it on that basis?
Terrorist Group Hamas Wins Elections
From Cox and Forkum:
"The elections results amount to a de facto declaration of war by the Palestinian people against the state of Israel. It's imperative our nation redouble its commitment to the state of Israel and cautiously evaluate any future assistance to a Palestinian regime governed by terrorists," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. "Hamas is a terrorist organization, which means they believe it is their right to murder women, children and innocent civilians to achieve their goals. It is unrealistic, unwise and even immoral to ask Israel to sit down with a government that contains people who have such beliefs," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and leaders said they had no plans to change it. But the group risks economic devastation resultingFrom AP: Carter Says Palestinian Elections Fair (via Little Green Footballs).
Former President Carter said Thursday the Palestinian elections were "completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence." Carter, who led an international observer team from the National Democratic Institute, also said he hoped that the Hamas Islamic group would act responsibly now that it appears to have been elected to power in Palestinian elections. "My hope is that as Hamas assumes a major role in the next government, whatever that might be, it will take a position on international standards of responsibility," he told a news conference in Jerusalem.And as we noted yesterday: The terrorist group Hamas vowed not to disarm or negotiate with the Jewish state if it enters the Palestinian parliament after the election. From The Jerusalem Post: Netanyahu warns of birth of Hamastan (via Tom Pechinski and Rantburg).
Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu told the Likud faction in the Knesset Thursday, "Before our very eyes, Hamastan has been established, the step-child of Iran and the Taliban. It's in firing range of our airport, our highways and cities. This has to be a day of soul searching because the writing was on the wall. The policy of giving land for free gave a prize to terror and a winning card for Hamas.From CNN: Hamas leader: 'Palestinian army' possible.
A leader of the militant group Hamas promised reforms and indicated the possibility of a Palestinian army in the wake of the historic elections that swept his party into power this week. The comments by Khaled Mashaal, based in Damascus, Syria, come after Israeli and U.S. leaders indicated that little progress was possible unless Hamas denounces violence and disarms. Mashaal said Hamas will not consider disarming, but would instead form an army to defend the Palestinian people "If you do not like our militancy, we are ready to unify the Palestinian arms ... and create an army, just like any other country," Mashaal said.
BB&T Respects Property Rights, Won’t Fund Eminent Domain Abuse
Arlington, Va.—BB&T, the nation's ninth largest financial holdings company with $109.2 billion in assets, announced today that it "will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain."
In a press release issued today by the bank, BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison, said, "The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it's just plain wrong. One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won't help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership."
"BB&T's principled stand sets an example that should inspire other lenders and should become the new industry standard," said Institute for Justice President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. The Institute for Justice litigated the Kelo case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the taking of private property for someone else's private use in the guise of "economic development." Mellor said, "You can and should accomplish economic development through private negotiation, not the use of government force through eminent domain. As far as we're concerned, BB&T now stands for Best Bank in Town."
The U.S. Congress is now considering bipartisan legislation that would federally de-fund eminent domain for private use. Although the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation that would block any federal funds going to private development projects on land taken through eminent domain, the Senate has yet to vote on companion legislation. Last week, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), however, commented on an eminent domain case that was argued before the Ohio Supreme Court. The case involves Carl and Joy Gamble, homeowners from Norwood, Ohio, who could lose their home through eminent domain for a privately owned mall and high-end apartments. Frist wrote in an op-ed published by the Cincinnati Enquirer, "I have some pretty clear thoughts about the [Norwood] case: The Gambles should keep their home and the developer should either build around it or cancel the development plans altogether. . . . Quite simply, no family should ever risk losing its home because a government wants to help a private developer."
Scott Bullock, an IJ senior attorney who argued the Kelo case, said, "Eminent domain abuse is wrong and unconstitutional. BB&T has stepped up and recognized its corporate responsibility to not be a part of this shameful abuse of individual rights."
Dana Berliner, an IJ senior attorney who argued the Gambles' case before the Ohio Supreme Court, said, "Throughout the country, banks have been silent partners in the unholy alliance between local governments and private developers. Banks finance developers and cities that use eminent domain to take someone's home or business and turn the land into new stores, condos, and office space. Others will hopefully follow BB&T's courageous example."
A speech by Dr. Tara Smith. Details: DATE: Thursday, February 02, 2006 TIME: 7:00 pm (Doors @ 6:30PM) LOCATION: 60 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012 @ NYU Kimmel Center - Room 914 DESCRIPTION: In the debate over judicial interpretation of the Constitution, the theory of Originalism (advocated by Antonin Scalia, among others) has been subjected to seemingly fatal criticisms. Despite the exposure of flaws that would normally bury a theory, however, Originalism continues to attract tremendous support. What explains its resilient appeal? Why do many continue to regard it as the most reasonable basis for judicial interpretation? This lecture will answer these questions in part, by identifying the fundamental weakness of the leading alternatives to Originalism and in part, by demonstrating that the heart of Originalism's appeal – its promise of judicial objectivity – is illusory. All camps in this debate, we will see, suffer from! serious misunderstandings of the nature of objectivity.
BB&T Won’t Offer Eminent Domain Loans
BB&T announces eminent domain policy. Good for them!WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – BB&T Corporation today said it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.
The commercial lending policy change comes in the wake of Kelo v. City of New London, a controversial Supreme Court decision in June that said governments can seize personal property to make room for private development projects.
The court's ruling cleared the way for an expansion of eminent domain authority historically used primarily for utilities, rights of way and other public facilities.
"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it's just plain wrong," said BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison.
"One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won't help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership."
The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that 15 homes in a waterfront neighborhood in New London, Conn., could be acquired by the city, turned over to private developers and ultimately replaced by a luxury hotel, upscale condos and office buildings. The city justified the project as a way to generate tax revenue and jobs.
Critics charged that by letting local governments decide what constitutes a "public purpose," the court abdicated its duty to protect citizens from unconstitutional seizures of their property under the Fifth Amendment.
In a stinging dissent by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, she wrote that, since the decision, "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
But that may change. Thirty-eight states have recently passed or are considering laws that would ban the use of eminent domain for private development. A similar bill that would apply a federal ban has passed the House, and President Bush has voiced his support for such reform.
The bipartisan Private Property Rights Protection Act would revoke for two fiscal years all federal economic development financing – a significantly large amount of money for most localities and states – from local governments that condemn privately owned houses and other non-blighted property so that they can transfer it to private developers.
"While we're certainly optimistic about the pending legislation, this is something we could not wait any longer to address," said BB&T Chief Credit Officer Ken Chalk. "We're a company where our values dictate our decision-making and operating standards. From that standpoint, this was a straightforward decision; it's simply the right thing to do."
Winston-Salem-based BB&T Corporation and its subsidiaries offer full-service commercial and retail banking and additional financial services such as insurance, investments, retail brokerage, corporate finance, consumer finance, treasury services, international banking, leasing and trust.
BB&T operates more than 1,400 financial centers in the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Indiana and Washington, D.C.
With $109.2 billion in assets, BB&T Corp. is the nation's ninth largest financial holding company. More information about BB&T Corp. is available at www.BBandT.com.
New Journal: The Objective Standard
From Craig Biddle at The Objective Standard:Dear Friend of Capitalism,I am pleased to announce the official launch of The Objective Standard: www.TheObjectiveStandard.com. You can now see the contents of our premier issue, read our statement of purpose (also reprinted below), check out our upcoming events, and subscribe to the print or online version of the journal.If you plan to subscribe to the print version--which I highly recommend, since issues will average 100 pages in length--please do so by February 17th to ensure that your first issue is included in our initial mailing, scheduled for early March. Access to the online version of the journal will be available to all subscribers in mid-March.Whatever your choice of subscription, we look forward to providing you with philosophical journalism as it might and ought to be. Please feel free to forward this information to anyone who you think might be interested in The Objective Standard.Best wishes,
Craig Biddle
Editor, The Objective Standard
www.theobjectivestandard.com
Statement of PurposeThe Objective Standard is a quarterly journal of culture and politics based on the idea that for every human concern—from personal matters to foreign policy, from the sciences to the arts, from education to legislation—there are demonstrably objective standards by reference to which we can assess what is true or false, good or bad, right or wrong. The purpose of the journal is to analyze and evaluate ideas, trends, events, and policies accordingly.We maintain that the standards of both knowledge and value derive from the facts of reality; that truth is discovered only by means of reason, i.e., through observation and logic; that the factual requirements of man's life on earth determine his moral values; that the selfish pursuit of one's own life-serving goals is virtuous; and that individual rights are moral principles defining the fundamental requirements of a civilized society.We stand opposed to the notion that the standards of knowledge and value are not factual but subjective (feeling-based) or other-worldly (faith-based); that truth is ultimately dictated by majority opinion or a "supernatural" being's will; that democratic consensus or "God's word" determines what is moral; that sacrifice for the common good or in obedience to "God's commands" is virtuous; and that rights are social conventions or "divine decrees."In stark contrast to these philosophic approaches, ours is a philosophy of reality, reason, egoism, and laissez-faire capitalism. In a word, we uphold Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and it serves as our frame of reference in analyzing the cultural and political issues of the day. [link]
Event – Why Originalism Won’t Die: Common Mistakes in Competing Theories of Judicial Interpretation
The Objectivist Club at New York University is excited to announce the following upcoming event. For more information and to register, please visit http://nyu.objectivismonline.net Why Originalism Won't Die: Common Mistakes in Competing Theories of Judicial InterpretationA speech by Dr. Tara Smith. Details: DATE: Thursday, February 02, 2006 TIME: 7:00 pm (Doors @ 6:30PM) LOCATION: 60 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012 @ NYU Kimmel Center - Room 914 DESCRIPTION: In the debate over judicial interpretation of the Constitution, the theory of Originalism (advocated by Antonin Scalia, among others) has been subjected to seemingly fatal criticisms. Despite the exposure of flaws that would normally bury a theory, however, Originalism continues to attract tremendous support. What explains its resilient appeal? Why do many continue to regard it as the most reasonable basis for judicial interpretation? This lecture will answer these questions in part, by identifying the fundamental weakness of the leading alternatives to Originalism and in part, by demonstrating that the heart of Originalism's appeal – its promise of judicial objectivity – is illusory. All camps in this debate, we will see, suffer from! serious misunderstandings of the nature of objectivity.
The Objective Standard: Now Taking Subscriptions
Craig Biddle's The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics, is now online and taking subscriptions. Thefirst issue will feature thefollowing articles: "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein; The Hierarchy of Knowledge: The Most Neglected Issue in Education Lisa VanDamme; Enlightenment Science and its Fall David Harriman; and Exposing Anti-Muslim "Conspiracies" Elan Journo.Entrepreneurship: America vs Europe
In catching up on some old Mauldin letters, I came across this interesting factoid:The Washington Post this June states, "In France, not a single enterprise founded in the past 40 years has managed to break into the ranks of the 25 biggest French companies. By comparison, 19 of today's largest U.S. companies didn't exist 4 decades ago. That's why France is looking to the United States for lessons."I think this is consistent with the general observation that Europe is mired in class and social heirarchy, while America, though much less than in its heyday, still values and rewards accomplishments and ability.
‘Just War Theory’ vs. American Self-Defense
The Objective Standard sponsors lectures and debates on cultural and political issues. Currently scheduled events are listed below:
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Lecture: "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense" by Yaron Brook
Location: Conference Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, D.C.
Time: 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM Thursday, May 11, 2006
Debate: "Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish?" with Jeffrey A. Finkle and Yaron Brook
Time: 1:00 PM–3:00 PM
For full details visit their website.
A speech by Dr. Yaron Brook Details: DATE: Monday January 30, 2006 TIME: 7:00 pm (Doors @ 6:30PM) LOCATION: 60 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012 @ NYU Kimmel Center - Room Rosenthal Pavilion (10th Floor) DESCRIPTION: Conservatives often present themselves as "pro-business" and "pro- free market"-i.e., in favor of an economic system that enables productive businessmen to flourish. Yet, in reality, Dr. Yaron Brook observes, conservatives support many anti-business policies, from antitrust prosecution to "windfall" taxes on profits-policies that hurt this nation's most innovative and successful businessmen. Conservatives are anti-business in practice, Dr. Brook argues, because they accept an anti-business moral theory-a religious morality that upholds a life of renunciation and sacrifice, and thus advocates a government that shackles, taxes, and punishes the pursuit of material success in this world. What America's productive businessmen need-and, in fact, what all of us need-Dr. Brook explains, is a moral philosophy that regards the creation and enjoyment of wealth as a virtue.
Lecture: "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense" by Yaron Brook
Location: Conference Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, D.C.
Time: 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM Thursday, May 11, 2006
Debate: "Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish?" with Jeffrey A. Finkle and Yaron Brook
- To Preserve: Jeffrey A. Finkle, President and CEO of the International Economic Development Council
- To Abolish: Yaron Brook, Executive Director of The Ayn Rand Institute
Time: 1:00 PM–3:00 PM
For full details visit their website.
Event: Why Conservatives are Anti-Business
The Objectivist Club at New York University is excited to announce the following event. For more information and to register, please visit http://nyu.objectivismonline.net Why Conservatives are Anti-BusinessA speech by Dr. Yaron Brook Details: DATE: Monday January 30, 2006 TIME: 7:00 pm (Doors @ 6:30PM) LOCATION: 60 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012 @ NYU Kimmel Center - Room Rosenthal Pavilion (10th Floor) DESCRIPTION: Conservatives often present themselves as "pro-business" and "pro- free market"-i.e., in favor of an economic system that enables productive businessmen to flourish. Yet, in reality, Dr. Yaron Brook observes, conservatives support many anti-business policies, from antitrust prosecution to "windfall" taxes on profits-policies that hurt this nation's most innovative and successful businessmen. Conservatives are anti-business in practice, Dr. Brook argues, because they accept an anti-business moral theory-a religious morality that upholds a life of renunciation and sacrifice, and thus advocates a government that shackles, taxes, and punishes the pursuit of material success in this world. What America's productive businessmen need-and, in fact, what all of us need-Dr. Brook explains, is a moral philosophy that regards the creation and enjoyment of wealth as a virtue.
Brook on CNBC TV
Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, is scheduled to appear on the CNBC TV program "Closing Bell" today, Jan. 11, 2006, between 7:00 and 8:00 P.M. Eastern time, to discuss why Microsoft and other internet companies should not help Chinese censors. Dr. Brook is also scheduled to appear on the CNBC TV program "Morning Call" tomorrow, Jan. 12, 2006, between 10:00 A.M and 12:00 P.M Eastern time, to discuss why the SEC should not adopt more stringent rules for disclosure of executive compensation.Microsoft and the Chinese Censors
Andy Bernstein will be on Thom Hartmann's Show on Air America again. The interview will be 10 minutes long and start at 12:00 Noon on Wednesday January 11, 2006. The topic is "Microsoft and the Chinese Censors".The Scoop on Jacques Derrida
From myrhaf.blogspot.com (Hat-tip to Noodlefood):This interview with Habermas and Derrida on 9/11 is old, but astonishing if you have not seen it. This is a small excerpt of the late Jacques Derrida trying to figure out what happened on 9/11:"Something" took place, we have the feeling of not having seen it coming, and certain consequences undeniably follow upon the "thing." But this very thing, the place and meaning of this "event," remains ineffable, like an intuition without concept, like a unicity with no generality on the horizon or with no horizon at all, out of range for a language that admits its powerlessness and so is reduced to pronouncing mechanically a date, repeating it endlessly, as a kind of ritual incantation, a conjuring poem, a journalistic litany or rhetorical refrain that admits to not knowing what it's talking about. We do not in fact know what we are saying or naming in this way: September 11, le 11 septembre, September 11. The brevity of the appellation (September 11, 9/11) stems not only from an economic or rhetorical necessity. The telegram of this metonymy—a name, a number—points out the unqualifiable by recognizing that we do not recognize or even cognize that we do not yet know how to qualify, that we do not know what we are talking about.
Being a philosopher should make one more intelligent than the average man. It should give one the ability to make integrations most people cannot imagine. The philosophy of Jacques Derrida, maybe the most famous philosopher of the late 20th century, made him less intelligent than the average man. He could not understand what happened on September 11, 2001. The fact that people use the date to refer to what happened on that day seems to have baffled the man.